RE: FROM "PLAN B" TO "PLAN ZERO" - THERE IS NEED TO EXPOSE THE MISINFORMATION BY ANTI-GEOENGINEERING ALARMISTS
Time and again there appears references to a conspiratory individual who goes it alone to change world climate for good or bad by geoengineering. There is no ground in these ridiculous and overblown claims: Jason Blackstock, an international governance fellow at the Vienna-based International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, thinks that the deployment of geoengineering technologies might ultimately come down to political narratives and unilateral action. A developing country ... might decide to undertake some geoengineering measure itself, he says. "If I had to place a bet now, ..... There is also the prospect of private corporations or individuals using geoengineering technology to combat climate change on their own." Let me propose this matter to the world's largest reinsurer Munich Re that they start doing now geoengineering at their own expense as an "unilateral action" to reduce their number of climate-related insurance claims. Where is the economics of unilateral corporate actionsto hijack world's climate to "make money2 by putting out sulphur to negate the forcing of carbon dioxide that comes out of the smoke stacks. "If I had to place a bet now, ..... There is also the prospect of private corporations or individuals using geoengineering technology to combat climate change on their own." Even powerful individuals will be capable and awaiting out there to change the world's climate at will to change the greenhouse gas load's effects for their benefit. Find me the powder that will deliver this at good cost so that my farmer friends can their pockets by changing the climate and the world to lengthen their carrot-growing season. So far, there is not a single proven geoengieering ready for deployment that some individual or corporation or poor Bangladesh could deploy. These people or dreamers are only scare-mongering about the wide effects of geoengineering that are readily off-the-shelf. It has been suggested that the clobal cooling from 1940's was due to increased sulphur from industries, but this was not a single firm or individual, neither the global effect was that remarkable, except the acid rains in Sweden and Finland which have now already recovered. There will not be any unitary action individual or corporate firm spoiling our global warming by unilateral geoengineering. I believe it is self-delusion of the anti-geoengineering alarmists to claim the existence of the willing individual or corporate to do the above. Not even countries seem to be contemplating these as unitary action. Kind regards, Albert Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 11:30:16 -0400 Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering in "Plan B" From: [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] CC: [email protected] I think we need to stop having climate engineering thought of as a Plan B—it is not an alternative to emissions control nor to adaptation nor to both of them together. Without emissions control, neither CDR not SRM is likely to be able to keep up with emissions and warming influences, and while emissions control and climate engineering might reduce the needed degree of adaptation, the need for adaptation will not go away and there might well be different types of adaptation needed. While some don’t like my burning house analogy, calling the firemen is not an alternative to turning off the torches that set off the fire (and should not slow that effort)--especially as it’s not yet clear how effective the firemen’s techniques might be. Turning off the torches and calling the firemen are needed, as well as dealing with the situation. Mike On 10/1/10 4:06 AM, "John Nissen" <[email protected]> wrote: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53021 Geoengineering May Represent Earth's Best "Plan B" By Matthew O. Berger WASHINGTON, Sep 30, 2010 (IPS) - Beyond Copenhagen and Cancún, a different climate debate has been brewing. The outcome of this debate, however, will affect far more than the climate, and that is precisely why it is so contentious. As many countries continue to refuse to cap their greenhouse gas emissions and climate change-induced emergencies become increasing likely – or frequent – some researchers are saying it is time to seriously look in to developing a plan B for stopping climate change. This plan B would consist of "geoengineering" whereby carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere, the amount of solar radiation heating the planet is reduced, or both. There are several proposals that fit into these broad categories, and they vary greatly both in terms of their acceptance and in the likely feasibility that they can be done on a large enough scale. For now, though, the plans are still largely thin on specifics and relegated to the outskirts of climate discussions. That is especially true for the category of geoengineering called solar radiation management, or SRM. This category includes, in decreasing order of likely feasibility at a large scale, according to researcher David Keith, spraying aerosols high in the atmosphere, whitening marine clouds, placing satellites with mirrors in space, and whitening the surface of the oceans. The other category of geoengineering fixes, carbon dioxide removal (CRM), includes such accepted measures as planting forests to serve as carbon sinks or burning biomass in place of fossil fuels like coal. More novel CRM approaches would include growing large amounts of algae from which a biofuel can then be derived and, most controversially, sprinkling minerals like iron or limestone over parts of the ocean. Researchers like Keith, an environmental scientist at the University of Calgary and leading geoengineering thinker, are quick to note that these technical solutions to climate change should not be thought of as substitutes for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They also note that most of these technologies are not close to ready for deployment and that more than anything further research is needed to determine both what adverse consequences such technical solutions might have and whether these solutions even work – that is, whether they can really be thought of as a plan B. For now, many fears remain over the possible ecological implications of engineering the planet's climate. And these scientific issues, as well as political and legal issues, will need to be sorted out if research in the field is going to advance much further. Brad Allenby, a professor of engineering and ethics at Arizona State University, is concerned that a single-minded focus on solving climate change might overlook possible spill-over effects of those solutions on other phenomena, such as weather patterns or the nitrogen cycle. "These are important technologies but we need to understand a lot more, particularly about scale…When do I put enough material into the stratosphere that I change monsoon patterns?" Allenby said at a conference here Monday. He says we need to stop thinking of geoengineering measures as solely "climate-change technologies". "Climate change is part of the sweep of issues that need to be dealt with. These issues are not going to decouple just because we don't think we're smart enough to understand the coupling," he said. Beyond these conceptual and ecological problems, this potential technology also poses thorny questions for international law and governance. Jason Blackstock, an international governance fellow at the Vienna-based International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, thinks that the deployment of geoengineering technologies might ultimately come down to political narratives and unilateral action. A developing country that feels it is being slighted by the lack of action on emissions reductions by the wealthy countries that have contributed the most to climate change might decide to undertake some geoengineering measure itself, he says. "If I had to place a bet now, I would give at least even odds that [the country that deploys geoengineering measures first] won't be the U.S. and that it would more likely be an emerging economy simply because of the alignment of politics and incentive structure," both in the U.S. and in emerging economies, he says. There is also the prospect of private corporations or individuals using geoengineering technology to combat climate change on their own. But, as Dan Bodansky, a professor of law, ethics and sustainability at Arizona State University, pointed out Monday, "It wouldn't be a single act; it would be a continuous activity over time, which, I assume, would be possible to detect and respond to," making it difficult for geoengineering measures to be taken without the knowledge of governments. Still, many questions would remain, Bodansky says, including who has jurisdiction and what governments or entities should respond. The other fear is political: if geoengineering options become readily available, would the incentive to significantly reduce emissions still exist? But Blackstone says that incentive works two ways. It is conceivable, he says, that by 2015 geoengineering options could be used as a negotiation tactic in global climate summits like last year's in Copenhagen and this year's in Cancún. Island states or other countries that face an existential threat from rising seas, for instance, could band together and "build a little red button and go to the negotiations and say, 'Are you guys going to mitigate? Well, I have a red button to inject sulphur aerosols [into the atmosphere, expected to reflect solar radiation]. Are you guys going to mitigate now?'" says Blackstone. For now, Keith and other geoengineering researchers are just hoping there will be further research into both the technologies and the contentious questions it raises. They admit their planet-scale measures have large risks, but also know that the time may come when the risk of climate change-induced emergencies outweighs the risks that geoengineering may bring - and hope they have answered enough of the questions about the technologies that it is known whether it has a role to play in staving off the worst of climate change's effects. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
